Key result
ASU model fails to reduce negative appendicectomy rates versus traditional care.
Why the study?
General surgery in Australia shifted toward Acute Surgical Unit models, but the effect of care model type on negative appendicectomy rates and related clinical outcomes remained to be determined.
Does an Acute Surgical Unit (ASU) model decrease the rate of negative appendicectomy in patients undergoing appendicectomy?
Meta-Analysis (n=8,787)
Yes
Does an Acute Surgical Unit (ASU) model decrease the rate of negative appendicectomy in patients undergoing appendicectomy?
Odds Ratio: 1.1 (95% CI 0.944–1.262)
p-value: p=0.20
The implementation of an Acute Surgical Unit model did not significantly decrease the rate of negative appendicectomies or improve other clinical outcomes compared to traditional models in Australia and New Zealand.
ASU models should not be adopted to reduce negative appendicectomy rates; confirms absence of benefit in Level 1 evidence.
Australia performs more appendicectomies per capita than nearly any other country. The surgical specialty responsible for performing appendicectomies in Australia, General Surgery, has recently undergone a paradigm shift away from traditional models of care and towards Acute Surgical Unit (ASU) models. ASUs are defined by the presence of a dedicated emergency general surgeon and the separation of elective and emergency surgical caseload. The aim of this meta-analysis is to determine the effect of care model type on the rate of negative appendicectomy, as well as other clinical outcomes pertaining to the appendicectomy patient. A comprehensive literature search of Medline, Embase and Cochrane library was performed to identify studies investigating the effect of ASU care model on the outcomes of appendicectomy for Australian and New Zealand patients. These studies were required to have a comparison to a pre-existing or geographically related traditional care cohort. The PRISMA guidelines were used to identify, screen and analyse papers. Random-effects methods were used to perform a meta-analysis of negative appendicectomy rate and other relevant outcomes. Results were reported in either odds ratio or weighted mean difference. Thirteen studies meeting the inclusion criteria were identified describing the outcomes of 8787 patients undergoing appendicectomy in Australian and New Zealand hospitals. There was no effect on negative appendicectomy rate between the ASU and traditional cohorts (OR: 1.10, CI: 0.944-1.262, p-value 0.20). Furthermore, no significant effect on time-to-theatre (WMD: 1.107, CI: 0.332 – 2.882, p-value 0.22), length of stay (MD: 0.563, CI: 0 – 1.135, p-value 0.13) or complication rate (OR: 0.872, CI: 0.596 – 1.148, p-value 0.36) was observed between the two cohorts. Rates of negative appendicectomy in Australia are similar in both ASU and traditional model cohorts. Significant improvements in appendicectomy outcomes seen under an ASU model in international data, or in data for other emergency conditions, have not been replicated on this meta-analysis of the Australian literature.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Britcliffe et al. (2023) conducted a meta-analysis in Appendicectomy (n=8,787). Acute Surgical Unit (ASU) model vs. Traditional care model was evaluated on Rate of negative appendicectomy (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.944-1.262, p=0.20). The Acute Surgical Unit (ASU) model did not significantly affect the rate of negative appendicectomy compared to traditional care models (OR 1.10; 95% CI 0.944-1.262; P=0.20).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: